2012 Oscar Nominations

For the films of 2012
Post Reply
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by Big Magilla »

Oscar voting doesn't start until February 8th. The winds of change are still swirling.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Sabin wrote:I feel sort of bad for the producers and the creatives on this film. I'm not a big fan of Zero Dark Thirty, but they did a pretty miserable job of heading off bad publicity at the pass. Admittedly, not every Oscar contender has to deal with Senate inquiries, but Kathryn Bigelow has almost made the film sound like homework at this point. Rather than illustrate what her artistic vision is for the narrative, she is mounting the same programmed defense again and again. I don't gauge excitement from her public appearances. That being said, it's gotten some of the best reviews of the year and has grossed $71 million without signs of stopping before it hits somewhere between $80 or $90. I think the pro-ZDT articles are just too little too late. The damage has been done. It doesn't further credit Zero Dark Thirty, but simply attempts to discredit the attacks.
Bigelow's mistake was thinking she could use logic to convince folks her film was not pro-torture. As Martin Sheen so clearly admitted, the attacks on this film are based on absolute ignorance and maybe even prejudice. I think it was very big of him not only to publicly admit his mistake, but reach out and apologize personally to Bigelow and Boal.

As for the producers of this movie, do not feel bad for them Sabin. They are crying all the way to the bank. They love this controversy. It was not them being swift boated. Bigelow was turned into a 21st century Leni Riefenstahl. The studio did not care what happened to Bigelow as long as they saw a return on their investment. Luckily for them ZERO DARK THIRTY only cost $40 million, and the controversy will have helped the film make close to $100 m when all is said and done. That is not even counting what it makes overseas.

I know Amy Pascal made some comments in Bigelow's defense, but basically this was like something out of The Crucible with David Clennon playing the part of Abigail Williams. I am still not clear how he was able to trick Martin Sheen into joining his slanderous attacks on Bigelow. It really reminds me of what happened to poor Samuel Fuller after he made WHITE DOG. The ridiculous accusations against him and that film were disgraceful. Thankfully it looks like the assholes who wanted to destroy Bigelow are being exposed for the liars that they are. However, Sabin is right, the damage to the film's Oscar chances is already done.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by Sabin »

The fact that Django Unchained is the IMDB champ should indicate how little IMDB is to be trusted. Nerds! All of 'em!

My parents have seen Lincoln three times. Are my parents in the Academy? No. Could my parents be in the Academy? It's a stretch, but more likely than most voters on IMDB. If Argo wasn't currently surging, then the only Best Picture nominee we'd be talking about would be Zero Dark Thirty and it still wouldn't win.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by OscarGuy »

I wouldn't necessarily say that the box office numbers indicate people LOVE the film. The Spielberg name alone draws an audience. Add to that the historical importance and solid word of mouth, I think it was a success because of a combination of factors. That doesn't mean people loved it.

Here's how they are ranked at IMDB:

1. Django Unchained - 8.7
2. Life of Pi - 8.2
3. Argo - 8.1
*. Silver Linings Playbook - 8.1
5. Amour - 8.0
*. Les Misérables - 8.0
7. Lincoln - 7.9
8. Zero Dark Thirty - 7.7
9. Beasts of the Southern Wild - 7.4

IMDB isn't the perfect barometer, but with Licoln being 7th on the list, it's clear it doesn't have as much passionate support as the 6 films above it.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by rolotomasi99 »

OscarGuy wrote:Probably the raft of pro-ZDT articles being posted. HP has posted two recent articles about it. One is the Martin Sheen signing on to the anti-ZDT letter "without signing on" and now it's 9/11 families coming out against the anti-torture faction about ZDT. Basically, the publicity behind ZDT is struggling to stay relavent, thus a renewed interest in focusing on the film.
Right now ARGO and ZERO DARK THIRTY seem to be the only Best Picture nominees anyone is talking about. Even though conventional wisdom says LINCOLN is going to win Best Picture, no one seems all that enthusiastic about it. Obviously the box-office takes prove people love the movie, but it does not inspire passion the way Best Picture winners usually do.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by Sabin »

OscarGuy wrote
Probably the raft of pro-ZDT articles being posted. HP has posted two recent articles about it. One is the Martin Sheen signing on to the anti-ZDT letter "without signing on" and now it's 9/11 families coming out against the anti-torture faction about ZDT. Basically, the publicity behind ZDT is struggling to stay relavent, thus a renewed interest in focusing on the film.
I feel sort of bad for the producers and the creatives on this film. I'm not a big fan of Zero Dark Thirty, but they did a pretty miserable job of heading off bad publicity at the pass. Admittedly, not every Oscar contender has to deal with Senate inquiries, but Kathryn Bigelow has almost made the film sound like homework at this point. Rather than illustrate what her artistic vision is for the narrative, she is mounting the same programmed defense again and again. I don't gauge excitement from her public appearances. That being said, it's gotten some of the best reviews of the year and has grossed $71 million without signs of stopping before it hits somewhere between $80 or $90.

I think the pro-ZDT articles are just too little too late. The damage has been done. It doesn't further credit Zero Dark Thirty, but simply attempts to discredit the attacks.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by OscarGuy »

Probably the raft of pro-ZDT articles being posted. HP has posted two recent articles about it. One is the Martin Sheen signing on to the anti-ZDT letter "without signing on" and now it's 9/11 families coming out against the anti-torture faction about ZDT. Basically, the publicity behind ZDT is struggling to stay relavent, thus a renewed interest in focusing on the film.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by rolotomasi99 »

The Original BJ wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:The Huffington Post claims to have "crunched the stats on every Oscar nominee of the past 30 years to produce a scientific metric for predicting the winners at the 2013 Academy Awards."

http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/ ... redictions
The ludicrous thing about these "stats" is that the percentage granted to the frontrunners in almost every category is so overwhelming, the second and third place candidates have percentages basically close to zero, suggesting that a win by anything other than the frontrunner in EVERY SINGLE category would count as a Marisa Tomei-level stunner.
They also seem to be changing arbitrarily. When I first posted this link, I swear LIFE OF PI was ahead of ZERO DARK THIRTY in the Best Picture lineup -- I remember this because I thought it connected to our discussion about what would be in a five film lineup. Now ZERO DARK THIRTY is ahead of LIFE OF PI. What changed in the past few hours to bump LIFE OF PI down?
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by flipp525 »

These statistics are utter bullshit as is much on The Huffington Post website.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by The Original BJ »

rolotomasi99 wrote:The Huffington Post claims to have "crunched the stats on every Oscar nominee of the past 30 years to produce a scientific metric for predicting the winners at the 2013 Academy Awards."

http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/ ... redictions
The ludicrous thing about these "stats" is that the percentage granted to the frontrunners in almost every category is so overwhelming, the second and third place candidates have percentages basically close to zero, suggesting that a win by anything other than the frontrunner in EVERY SINGLE category would count as a Marisa Tomei-level stunner.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by Big Magilla »

Statistics and precedents don't mean a thing if the voters aren't fully supportive of the supposed front-runners. If more people like Silver Linings Phuckbook or Beasts of the Southern Whoopee Cushion than what the stats tell them they should like, then that's what they're going to vote for.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by Sabin »

Greg wrote
Sabin wrote
This is the first time in over a decade where I'm not sure what's going to win Best Picture or Best Director. 2002, with A Beautiful Mind and Ron Howard (though that was deluding myself)? 2001, with Gladiator and Steven Soderbergh?
You were sure that Million Dollar Baby would defeat The Aviator in 2004 and that Crash would defeat Brokeback Mountain in 2005?
Million Dollar Baby? Yes. It wasn't going to be The Aviator or Sideways.

Crash? Well, I was pretty much the only person on this Board to predict it would win in 2005, but at the time Brokeback Mountain was an even bigger lock to win than Million Dollar Baby. Perhaps I should have said "where most people are not sure what's going to win."
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by ITALIANO »

It's the typical "little movie" which IS nominated for Best Picture.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by rolotomasi99 »

OscarGuy wrote:You don't get nominations in screenplay, acting and directing without support from a wide array of voters.

It's hard to believe the DGA would only match 3, but I really think Beasts had a lot more support than anyone expected. You don't give a Best Director nod to someone like Benh Zeitlin without loving his film.
I am not 100% sure what you mean by "someone like Benh Zeitlin" but I am assuming you are referring to his young age and inexperience.

Here is the list of the ten youngest directors nominated for an Oscar:

1. John Singleton (24 years) -- Boyz In the Hood
2. Orson Welles (26 years) -- Citizen Kane
3. Kenneth Branagh (29 years) -- Henry V
4. Claude Lelouch (29 years) -- A Man And A Woman
5. M. Night Shyamalan (29 years) -- The Sixth Sense
6. George Lucas (29 years) -- American Graffiti
7. Benh Zeitlin (30 years) -- Beasts Of The Southern Wild
8. Jason Reitman (30 years) -- Juno
9. Spike Jonze (30 years) -- Being John Malkovich
10. Steven Spielberg (31 years) -- Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Five of these directors had corresponding Best Picture nominations. Five of these directors were making their feature film debut. BEING JOHN MALKOVICH was nominated for its directing, writing, and acting yet was not nominated for Best Picture. A MAN AND A WOMAN was nominated in the categories of Director, Original Screenplay, Lead Actress, and Foreign Language Film, but not Best Picture.

BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD is one of my top five favorite films of the year, but even I doubt it would have been nominated for Best Picture in a five film lineup.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by Greg »

rolotomasi99 wrote:The Huffington Post claims to have "crunched the stats on every Oscar nominee of the past 30 years to produce a scientific metric for predicting the winners at the 2013 Academy Awards."

http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/ ... redictions
I question how they are crunching their stats when they predict that Argo will win Best Picture while failing to win any other award.
Post Reply

Return to “85th Nominations and Winners”